IN DEFENSE OF PERPETUAL CREATION...

Posted on 2010.04.23 at 20:25

NOTE: You can always tell when I'm near the end of a relapse: I make another genius post. Theoretical physics has always been my number one intellectual love - I have seldom had the ability to think on it lately, due to my illness... But here's a good post which I suggest everyone read for your own benefit....

Physicists make me so mad sometimes. They are all confused as to WHY the universe is expanding faster than they ever expected. And so they create the need to find DARK MATTER and THE GOD PARTICLE to explain it and supersymetry and so forth. In the case of the latter, they are looking for a PROOF to rationalise their mathematics. But they don't understand that mathematics is AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER. For instance, measuring subatomic particles involve our, and universal, interferences, which are completely different to the interferences, or geometrical impositions, imposed while measuring the galactic universe - therefore, you can't expect to FIND supersymetry RESOLVING sub-atomic and galactic scales, demonstrating dark matter, by simply finding a new particle - without any such discovery also opening up A WHOLE NEW CAN OF WORMS!

The whole theory of relativity is based on two imaginations: People travelling in a train at the speed of light; and a bowling ball sitting on a trampoline with a marble circling around it's indentation. Well, yo, the latter means that the whole explanation of the force of gravity BENDING SPACE-TIME has a kind of virus infecting it's reasoning, in that it is BASED ON A MODEL THAT ALREADY INVOLVES A FORCE OF GRAVITY (on the bowling ball and marble). When they say that gravity is bending the geometry of space-time, what they are really saying is that we are bending OUR geometry the same way gravity bends a trampoline around a bowling ball.

But, in actuality, this tautology really explains nothing, essentially, about gravity. What it DOES do is SUBCONSCIOUSLY say that, well, our mathematics IS AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER and can't work UNLESS WE BEND IT A LITTLE - but how much does that really alter Euclidean geometry? What we need is a mathematics for every particle, every event, every world-line, just as it occurs in nature. For THAT, we would need a supercomputer larger than the universe.

Of COURSE the universe is expanding faster than we thought. Of COURSE it is ACCELERATING instead of edging towards a compulsion to collapse. WHY would gravity eventually pull the universe back in towards collapse, as if the universe were simply an exploding bomb, the waves around a rock in a pool, or a marble falling back in towards a bowling ball - instead of being an infinite configuration which does not exist in any such mechanical context? It is relative only to itself.

If it wants to expand, it will expand, and nothing in it will change it's mind. (Bear in mind, I have read about how gravity is supposed to increase so as to make this collapse happen). And if somehow the acceleration is inspired from some influence from BEYOND the universe, "externally" or "internally", such as would occur in our macrocosmic, thermodynamical, Euclidean world, (and so our mathematics), it would only do so through the nature of the universe - and so gravity would not rise, relatively, to encourage collapse.

BECAUSE: In order to "explode" from NOTHING at the very beginning, during the "BIG BANG", "ACCELERATION" WAS THE REQUIREMENT, to reach escape velocity out of nothingness. What ever inspired that "explosion" - that BIG BANG ACCELERATION - has no reason to go away. Every "consecutive" occurance or event or configuration or addition/subtraction of mass/energy or relationship in the universe - is OF the same formula as it was in the "beginning".

Inserting our own OUTSIDE OBSERVER of mathematics, however creates the whole conundrum of a "BIG BANG" - the whole PROBLEM of acceleration and necessary dark matter, just as thermodynamical "TIME", and (information), creates the concept of entropy and chaos. We look out and necessarilly assume, through our subjective science, that there was a big bang, when in fact it is a failure of our measurement which prohibits us from see AN ALTERNATE reality of PERPETUAL CREATION, and so forth.

And IF the universe be inspired, from BEYOND, to slow down, and gravity increase its sway, then all that from BEYOND: A NOTHINGNESS WE ARE INHERENTLY INCAPAPABLE OF MEASURING - as if it weren't there at all. As if the switch to COLLAPSE arose merely from random CHANCE.

Here's a way of looking at how our mathematics is foolish: We say the BIG BANG began 14 billion years ago. But what does that mean? From what reference were we measuring this TIME, free of interventions and changes of the actual universe? Today, we say that light travels 186,000 miles per second. Let's say that it presently "takes 7 billion years to travel across half the universe at the speed of light". Well, how long would that have taken when the universe was 7 billion years old, and we only had to travel half the distance, taking... 3.5 billion years?

Would it take half the time, or would light be travelling only then at 93,000 miles per second? And when the universe was the size of an atom, would it take 7 billion years to cross half that atom? (Of course!)

Or, would it take virtually NO TIME WHATSOEVER according to our OUTSIDE OBSERVER MATHEMATICS, looking in? See what I'm getting at? Science, with it's somewhat bendable absolutes, chooses the latter interpretation, and therefore, it is ONLY CAPABLE OF CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS A BIG BANG.

But the tiny atom that the universe was at that "very begining" - during the big bang - it was as big, and as diverse, as the one that we live in now!

It WAS THE VERY SAME UNIVERSE AS NOW!!! There was NO big bang, as far as the universe is concerned! It was a BIG SCAM.

And, so, look at LIGHT. If we do indeed insist that the universe is expanding, then light has to find a way to accomodate that perception, in order for us to remain as members, observers, of the universe. Light says to itself, "But the fact is, there is no expansion - And now the demand is that THERE IS! So my role is now this one: Travel at virtually zero speed at the very beginning, and by the time man shows up, travel at 186,000 mps, and make it look like you've always traveled at that speed, cuz that's the speed of the photons in his brain..."

How does light remain the same speed? And yet, then, how does light speed up as the universe expands - without actually speeding up?... A yet remain the same - "NEW" - speed?...

By the REST OF THE UNIVERSE CHANGING - or NOT changing - in exact relationship to it, so that the DEFINITIONS of speed and distance - and time - may change, but the consistent coherence of the static-yet-dynamic universe remains the same.

Light, therefore, is a kind of synchronising glue of the "thermodynamic" and "relativistic" world - a plastic - a fiber-optic cable - being pulled further and further by the "expanding universe", and yet sorting everything out so that everything still works out the same, basically. Most everything adds up, in our minds. And gravity is beckoning it backwards. And expanding dark mass is cajoling it forward.

And even beyond light - FASTER than light - subatomic communication, or QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT, connects every atom and every event and every mind from every point of the universe ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT - beyond thermodynamical time and beyond relativity...

So, light is a kind of magical product of universal paradox - like curds on milk or silk from worms, it expresses the dynamic "SPIRIT" of existence. And CONSCIOUSNESS, which is made of light, is a major part of this ongoing creation or expression, stretching across the universe.

By necessity, the measurements eminating from our consciousness must both handicap us AND allow us to interact.

And quantum entanglement is basically the amazing experience of psychic mediation, by our awareness, of one huge paradox. The great beyond - call it what you will. Make of it what you will. Take the bull by the horns...

It's your life.

Fuck the bean-counters.

Every civilisation has had its own GENESIS creation theory, to keep the minions and plebes in line, content, and scared - while elite priests used trap-doors and inventions to create magic that dazzled the masses into religious obedience. (Their big hit was always to cause the sun to rise or to eclipse or such).

Odd though it may seem, the Big Bang theory is simply OUR modern world's Genesis creation theory, dutifully not conflicting with the Christian version, serving to perform the same designs - including upon scientists themselves.

The CERN Large Hadron Super-Collider, stretching and stretching to uphold and enhance this theory(s), is determined to "discover" the God Particle by around 2012, oddly, at about the same time the world's CREDIT and DEBT situation teeters on the edge of COLLAPSE.

Not much different from the Knights of Templar or the Masons trying to hold Christian Civilisation together.

And so, I merely say: Give to Caesar what Caesar already owns.

And I ask: Does Caesar, in truth, own the SKY?

Should we find a new, perpetual form of energy through CERN, which we prolly will, or through the SUN or through "UFO" zero-point energy technology:

Just remember that even then, even more than ever, IT IS YOU WHO OWNS THE SKY. The mathematic IDEALS of Plato begin IN YOU.

Alive and creating and aware through the conflicts of PARADOX, ONLY YOU CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

(What, again, is the by-line of my journal?)

To believe otherwise, and fall in line, is only to worship the same lies that brought the COLLAPSE of Easter Island.

Comments:

I've never put that much thought into "The Big Bang Theory" Though... I did always wonder why that was taught at school, but the evolution vs creation was such a big huss fuss for everyone. I'll never understand it.

I always imagined the universe in a vacuum somewhere, moving towards the pull, the earth was just some electron circling the sun which was the atom... but I know that's sill as all hell.

The universe it huge, and we'll never know what's out there... or maybe one day we can.